Karl Marx wrote The German Ideology in 1845 while living in Brussels. At this point in his life he had already been expelled from Prussia and France, and had moved to Belgium because it afforded more political freedom than any other European state at the time. In 1845 he had recently returned from a trip to England with Friedrich Engels, where he spent a great deal of time in the Manchester Library developing his political and economic theories; he also met with several other European exiles while in Britain. In The German Ideology, Marx develops his concept of history, a concept in which human activity (rather than thought) plays the crucial role. Like most of his other works, Marx was not able to find a publisher for this book during his lifetime; it was not published in full until 1932. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm
Part I: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
A. Idealism and Materialism
Karl Marx begins expounding upon his main premises by first contrasting his ideas with those of the "Young Hegelians." Marx writes that, "This dependence on Hegel is the reason why not one of these modern critics has even attempted a comprehensive criticism of the Hegelian system." One of the main problems Marx has with this dependence is the system's utter dependence on religion. The Hegelian system "presupposes" the dominance and prevalence of religion in every political, juridical, and moral consciousness. It is thus obvious why Marx thinks of religion as "the opiate of the poor." Marx believes that this dependence upon religion has prohibited "...philosophers to inquire into the connection of German philosophy with German reality..." Because of this prohibition, Marx set out to explain German reality as he sees it, beginning with a list of premises
Premise One: Existence of Living Individuals
Marx begins with, "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus, the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature."
Here, Marx proceeds to separate men from animals by attributing consciousness, religion etc. to the nature of men. Importantly, men separate themselves from animals by the way in which they derive their means of subsistence. Of this derivation of a subsistence, Marx writes that "As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are therefore, coincides with their production, both what they produce and how they produce."
Next, Marx makes it known that nations separate themselves from other nations by the manner in which they have developed their "productive forces." Even "...the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the state of development reached by its production and its internal and external resources." Every single productive force brings with it a different division of labor. An example from American history would be the creation of the Cotton Gin. Replacing the need for workers hand-picking the seeds out of the cotton was the Gin, which was able to do this task by itself. Thus, the need for workers decreased and the need for skilled operators (for the Gins) increased.
Marx next writes that the division of labor separates the industrial and commercial from the agricultural sector.
· This separation thus leads to a division between 1) country and town and 2) commercial and industrial labor
· These "various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership," according to Marx
Division of Labor and Forms of Property
There are different kinds of ownership, the first being Tribal Ownership. Tribal Ownership "...corresponds to the undeveloped stage of production, at which a people lives by hunting and fishing, by the rearing of beasts, or...agriculture." According to Karl Marx, the division of labor existent with Tribal Ownership is very rudimentary. Consequently, the social structure is basic and limited to the extended family.
The second form of ownership, "...is the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest..." Slavery, as with the first form of ownership, still exists. This stage of ownership is important for Marx as it marks the rising of private property as an "abnormal form subordinate to communal ownership." Citizens hold power over only those slaves in the community and remain tied to the communal ownership of land. Marx states that this stage illuminates class consciousness as, "...the division of labor is already more developed [than the previous stage]." This understanding of class position rises due to the existence of slaves and free people. However, class consciousness is further defined with the rise of states whose interests either lie with town or countryside. States define their interests based upon whether their interests lie more with production and industry or agriculture. The Communal State of ownership is important for Marx as it marks the rising of private property as an "abnormal form subordinate to communal ownership." With this rise of private property, the seeds are planted for the conditions of Marx's time
The third form of ownership is Feudal or Estate Property. This form of ownership, "Is based again on a community; but the directly producing class standing over against it is not...the slaves, but the enserfed small peasantry." Such an organization, according to Marx's beliefs, was an organization working against a "subjected producing class." However, the relationships and associations between serf and lord were different than modern times due to the different mode of production.
The feudal system, "...had its counterpart in the towns in the shape of corporative property, the feudal organization of trades." Property in these towns largely consisted of what one could make with his or her hands. However, competition from escaped serfs and the necessity to band against the nobles initiated the rise of trade guilds. Interestingly, the rising strength of these guilds sparked a mimicry of the feudal system in the countryside, "...which brought into being in the towns a hierarchy similar to that in the country."
Marx's summary has thus indicated that property during the feudal times consisted of lords and nobles with their serfs and on the other hand, the labor of the individual "with small capital commanding the labor of the journeyman."
The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History/ Social Being and Social Consciousness
For Marx, every single man, woman, and child is labeled according to his or her ability to produce. He writes that, "...definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations." For Marx, there is an inescapable connection between mode of production and the social and political structure of a given society. Every person is weighted by his or her ability to produce. Marx writes that "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men..." Marx here introduces the beginning of his idea known as "Commodification," the manufacture and consumption of ideas. Marx argues that all things in their original form are constructed for the purpose of monetary gain. This commodification includes the commodification of ideas, inventions, etc.
Marx distinguishes between the German philosophy of his day and his philosophy by saying, "In direct contrast to the German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven."
History: Fundamental Conditions
Marx states that, in order to make history, men must first satisfy the means to live, i.e. eating, drinking, and habitation. Therefore, the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy these needs.
Marx then goes on to talk about "consciousness". For him, consciousness is a social product, which concerns the immediate sensuous environment and of the limited connection with other persons and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious. At first, this consciousness is like that of a sheep in a herd, but as production and population increases, there evolves a division of labor. Marx says, "From this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real; from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of "pure" theory, theology, etc."
Marx views history as dependant on the mode of production. Agrarian societies have a very equal division of labor with a mode of production primarily dependant on land. As many societies evolved into feudal systems, towns became the center for trade guilds and skilled workers. Rural areas were dominated by nobles who virtually enslaved serfs. The division of labor in those societies was more pronounced because skilled work used capital which for the first time was not reliant on property. Marx emphasizes the division between skilled workers in guilds and the unskilled poor. Political power, Marx said, was dominated by the guilds which made laws primarily to protect their own property. Those with capital were able to build manufacturing plants in cities, which lead to the industrial revolution. Essentially, technology such as more efficient manufacturing equipment was changing the way history progressed. Technology increases the efficiency of the mode of production.
Private Property and Communism
With the division of labor comes the unequal distribution of labor and its products, i.e. property. Property, in its most fundamental form, can be found in the house, with the wife and children being seen as slaves to the husband. Further, Marx states, "division of labor implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another." The division of labor traps man in a specific mode of production, and he must remain in this mode if he is to maintain his livelihood. However, in a communist society, Marx alleges none has one exclusive sphere of activity, because the society regulates the general production. In practice state-controlled economies have had to regulate individuals to spheres of activity based on their expertise, such as Soviet nuclear workers who lived in an isolated town with special benefits.
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
Conclusions from the Materialist Conception of History
Marx begins by restating that history is the succession of separate generations, using the materials and capital funds inherited from previous generations. This new generation modifies how it uses its resources to the changing circumstances of the world, and in turn, these new modifications continue to shape and change the circumstances faced by future generations. Furthermore, the greater interaction and intercourse between separate spheres of production and labor across areas, the more history becomes world history. Marx cites how inventions or trade policies in one country can cause profound effects in others and therefore become world historic facts.
Summary of the Materialist Conception of History
Marx's conception of history depends on the ability to expound the real processes of production to understand the material process of life and the intercourse connected with this and created by it. Unlike Idealistic history, materialist history does not look for a particular framework to categorize history. It instead seeks to explain the formulation of ideas from material practice. Marx argues that revolution is the driving form of history, not the mental criticism or idealistic arrangements made by some of his contemporaries. Each generation therefore, is not the culmination of an ideal or self conciusness of the spirit, but instead the sum of productive forces and historically created relations that are handed down to the next generation.
The Inconsistency of the Idealest Conception of History
The idealist conception of nature separates man from history. It instead seeks to view history on some extra-superterrestrial, transcendent phenomenon. This according to Marx, creates the antithesis of history. These idealists simply look at history through its historical epochs and only pay attention to its purely religious or political motives as the controlling and determining factor of their real practices. Marx issues a scathing critique of post-Hegelians tendencies to separate ideals from the real events that gave rise to varying trends in history. He criticizes their arrogance to write history based on arbitrary constrictions and literary gossip while presupposing that their rendition of history is infinitely exalted above all national prejudices. He notes how absurd to presume these "God Men" existed above all bias and nationalist sentiments. All that these theorists do according to Marx, is take the nonsense they find and rearranging it into a framework that presupposes that these events have some special sense which can be discovered through theoretical analysis. It is the removal of man and real events from history that Marx cites as the Idealists fatal flaw.
Feuerback, another 19th century German philosopher, is criticized by Marx in this previous section. Although Feuerback claims he himself is a Communist, Marx rejects his claims; he scoffs at Feuerback's need to establish proof that men need each other and always have in order to justify an existing fact rather than overthrowing the existing system, as a real Communist should.
Preconditions of the Real Liberation of Man
"Liberation is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, and the conditions of intercourse..."
C. The Real Basis of Ideology
Division of Labor: Town and Country
According to Karl Marx, "The greatest division of material and metal labour is the separation of town and country." This separation, between town and country, entails a sort of antagonizing effect between the two. Marx writes about this antagonism. He states that, "The antagonism between town and country can only exist within the framework of private property. It is the most crass expression of the subjection of the individual under the division of labor." Consequently, Marx believes that the interests of "town-animals" and "country-animals" conflict. Thinking differently, Marx writes that,
"The separation of town and country can also be understood as the seperation of capital and landed property, as the beginning of the existence and development of capital independent of landed property - the beginning of property having its basis only in labour and exchange."
Marx proceeds to explain the advent of towns. He writes that towns were ultimately formed by serfs, fleeing from their masters. These serfs and their families entered the towns and were either adopted in to guilds or became day laborers. Marx calls these day laborers an "unorganized rabble" This unorganized rabble will eventually comprise the proletariat. Marx also writes that,
"These towns were true 'associations,' called forth by the direct need, the care of providing for the protection of property, and of multiplying the means of production and defence of the seperate members."
Marx follows up this quotation by describing the "rabble," who looked up these guild "associations" with envy and lust. The guilds largely excluded those who comprised the rabble and thus, maintained a strangle-hold on power. The rabble of former serfs remained powerless and could only manage simple revolts against the guilds and the landed class.
The guilds were comprised of workers who had to be "well-versed" in every aspect of their task. As there was little communication between towns, the workers of the guilds were relied upon to deliver products, as many products could not be bartered from the other towns. Marx describes the formation of guilds as the necessity to protect acquired skills, exclude serfs, and to protect the feudal organization of the whole country. The guild system effectively protected private property and created a patriarchal system to ensure the continuation of its existence. Journeymen were bound to the system so that they could one day become masters. Furthermore, the proximity of the guilds created tightly bound communities.
Division of Labor: Production and Commerce
Marx describes how the formation of a new class, the merchants, developed a new division of labor. The commercial dealings between towns brought the distinction between production and commerce. Marx claims that the only way for inventions not to be lost is through commerce. The invention must transcend its local area to have any permanent place in history, or else the invention can be lost to ordinary wars and disasters.
Marx writes that, "The next extension of the division of labor was the separation of production and commerce, the formation of a special class of merchants..." These special merchants soon spark communication between different towns and different parts of the world. Such communication initiates the advent of new ideas, new tools from different towns, "...and the separation between production and commerce soon calls forth a new division of production between the individual towns, each of which is soon exploiting a predominant branch of industry." This exploitation of different industries by different towns sparks the beginning of large cities and plants the seeds for the rising of nations. Marx ends his explanation of the separation of production and commerce by stating that
"Only when commerce has become world commerce and has as its basis large-scale industry, when all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, is the permanence of the acquired productive forces assured."
Here, Marx views the dawning of world commerce as a slow progression. Through this progression of commerce and industry, the more ingrained the process becomes in the inhabitants of the towns.
The Rise of Manufacturing
Manufacturing brought about the division of labor between the towns, with certain towns specializing in certain product areas. The pre-requisites for such towns were the concentration of population and capital to make and fund these endeavors.
Weaving was the first venture to succeed. People always need clothing and as the population size grew, more people needed more clothing. The accumulation of capital allowed for the growth in size and product diversification (ie. creating more luxurious products) of this industry. Furthermore, because weaving demanded little skill, the weaving industry resisted the tendency to form guilds. This spurned a change in property relations, as the capital of both merchants and manufacturing became more moveable and modern.
Manufacturing gained popularity among the guild-oppressed peasants. Relations between worker and employer changed, moving from a patriarhcal structure of slave and master to a monetary one of worker and capitalist. Furthermore, the feudal system deteriorated, thus breaking up loyal hierarchical armies, liberating peasants to work and earn a living for themselves, and transforming tillage into pasteurized land.
“With the advent of manufactures, the various nations entered into a competitive relationship, the struggle for trade, which was fought out in wars, protective duties and prohibitions, whereas earlier the nations, insofar as they were connected at all, had carried on an inoffensive exchange with each other. Trade had from now on a political significance.”
The discovery of the Americas and the finding of a trade route to East Asia lent themselves to the extension of commerce and thus manufacturing. History took on a new face of adventurism, colonization, and increasing world trade. However, with this new face came a new type of struggle – one over commerce and trading advantages. The accumulation of movable capital led to the decline of guilds, whose natural/stationary capital as well as limited production scope could not compete.
Nations began banning the export of their precious metals as well as providing protection of industries from both domestic and foreign competitors (using tariffs and tributes). While these measures originated out of necessity, they slowly took on a position of fiscal necessity as the State became more dependent on monetary capital. Tariffs (now both import and export) which were initially instilled to protect against robbers soon became a primary source of funds for the Treasury.
A second historical change happened between the middle of the 17th and lasted until the end of the 18th century. Trade dominated as commerce expanded- especially to the American colonies, which had become a significant market. Improvements and superiority in navigation became imperative to commercially competitive nations. “The competition of the nations among themselves was excluded as far as possible by tariffs, prohibitions and treaties; and in the last resort the competitive struggle was carried on and decided by wars (especially naval wars).” The viability of the markets (both home and abroad) necessitated the protection of manufacturing. Merchants- the facilitators of trade- gained political importance and clout. “This period is also characterised by the cessation of the bans on the export of gold and silver and the beginning of the trade in money; by banks, national debts, paper money; by speculation in stocks and shares and stockjobbing in all articles; by the development of finance in general. Again capital lost a great part of the natural character which had still clung to it.”
Most Extensive Division of Labor: Large Scale Industry
The advent of big industry, or the application of elemental forces to industrial ends, machinery and the most complex division of labour, spurned a third change in private ownership since the middle ages. Competitive nations instituted customs duties to harness these colossal industries.
The nature of the world was rapidly transforming, both physically and psychologically. The spirit of universal competition motivated individuals to work their hardest and repressed any ideology/philosophy/theology that endorsed ideas to the contrary. Eventually, all capital moved into the realm of industrial capital and thus was able to rapidly circulate. Physically, small towns gave way to large urban cities and natural growth that impeded labor was destroyed. Moreover, universal competition “made all civilised nations and every individual member of them dependent for the satisfaction of their wants on the whole world, thus destroying the former natural exclusiveness of separate nations…Generally speaking, big industry created everywhere the same relations between the classes of society, and thus destroyed the peculiar individuality of the various nationalities.” Social classes sprang up from the wreckage of the old world, once again making the worker’s life more difficult and at times unbearable. <>
The level of development among the big industries of different nations remains unequal, mainly due to the differing leadership ideologies and subsequent mass support. Despite the disadvantages of big industry, “the workers excluded from big industry are placed by it in a still worse situation than the workers in big industry itself.”
The Relation of State and Law Property
The first form of property was "tribal" property. Since tribes live together in oe town, the tribal property appears as state property with the individual having the right of mere possession which is confined to landed property only. Marx states that real private property began with movable propety such as slaves. It has evolved throughout time into its current form, which is cut off from the influence of the state. Modern private property then corresponds to the modern state as the national debt is held by the owners of private property and is dependent on the redit extended to it from these property holders by means of taxation and borrowing. The state therefore exists outside of society as an orginization of the bourgeois who support its perpetuation and organize to meet their aggregate interests. Therefore, where class exists, the state is not independent as the state merely fntions to protect private property.
Marx then continues his discussion on the formation of the law. He argues that the illusion of the law is that it develops from the will. In reality, it has developed out of the interests of the ruling class and in conjunction with the development of private property. He uses the examples of maritime law being derived from maritime trade. He continues to show the contradiction between the law being the general will while property itself is based on the private will. What this leads to is that the law is really derived from the individual will as property relationships and methods of intercourse evolve over time. The law exists to admit the new forms of commerce into the means to aquire property.
D. The Proletariat and Communism
Individuals, Class, and Community
In this section, Marx begins by claiming that, in the Middle Ages, burghers had to unite to overcome the landed nobilities' feudal rule. As these burghers came together, they developed common conditions which, once they broke feudal ties, became a class condition. These burghers came together into towns, and these towns soon began to form associations among themselves, which spread these class conditions everywhere. Slowly, this class began to include all propertied individuals, creating a second class below it of unpropertied individuals. This second class is only a class insomuch as they are fighting the higher class, but also must fight with each other for existance. The proletariat also begins to believe that their lot in life is predestined, so become subsumed by the class structure. This process, says Marx, is a sort of evolution of "Man".
The transformation, however, requires the creation of communities. In this way, Marx seems to say that individuals become less defined by themselves, the "pure" individual, and instead become more dependent on the community for definition. Marx refers to this as people's "accidental character" and claims that, while it may seem like people have more individual freedom under this system, really their freedom is hampered. For the capitalist class to develop their identity only takes creating new communities, while the proletariat requires overhauling the system all together, and literally abolishing the very conditions that brought them into existence. In doing so, they will find themselves in opposition to the form in which society has given itself collective expression, i.e. the State. The State is what is preventing the proletariat from asserting themselves as individuals.
Forms of Intercourse
"Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals." Communism creates a reality in which it is impossible for anything to exist independently of individuals, because reality is simply a product of individual intercourse.
Study Questions
When is it appropriate for the communist revolution to unravel?
In Marx's opinion is human history progressive, in other words have life gotten better over time? If yes, then how so?
Would Marx say that capitalism is good for society or bad? Why?
Marx says men and women are weighted on their ability to produce. Does this mean that he believes that men and women can at least in some cases be equal to one another?
Is Marx's fundamental premise really fundamental?
What is the mechanism propelling history forward, according to Marx? How does this mechanism compare to Hegel or Mill?
What is the fundamental problem with capitalist society, according to Marx?
Why is communism a good idea, according to Marx? Is his argument convincing?
What is a class?
What is capital?
How does Marx compare to Rousseau?
Would Marx have expected the current global economy and does it make communism more or less likely in his opinion?
Table of Contents
The German Ideology
Background
Karl Marx wrote The German Ideology in 1845 while living in Brussels. At this point in his life he had already been expelled from Prussia and France, and had moved to Belgium because it afforded more political freedom than any other European state at the time. In 1845 he had recently returned from a trip to England with Friedrich Engels, where he spent a great deal of time in the Manchester Library developing his political and economic theories; he also met with several other European exiles while in Britain. In The German Ideology, Marx develops his concept of history, a concept in which human activity (rather than thought) plays the crucial role. Like most of his other works, Marx was not able to find a publisher for this book during his lifetime; it was not published in full until 1932.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm
Part I: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
A. Idealism and Materialism
Karl Marx begins expounding upon his main premises by first contrasting his ideas with those of the "Young Hegelians." Marx writes that, "This dependence on Hegel is the reason why not one of these modern critics has even attempted a comprehensive criticism of the Hegelian system." One of the main problems Marx has with this dependence is the system's utter dependence on religion. The Hegelian system "presupposes" the dominance and prevalence of religion in every political, juridical, and moral consciousness. It is thus obvious why Marx thinks of religion as "the opiate of the poor." Marx believes that this dependence upon religion has prohibited "...philosophers to inquire into the connection of German philosophy with German reality..." Because of this prohibition, Marx set out to explain German reality as he sees it, beginning with a list of premises
Premise One: Existence of Living Individuals
Marx begins with, "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus, the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature."
Here, Marx proceeds to separate men from animals by attributing consciousness, religion etc. to the nature of men. Importantly, men separate themselves from animals by the way in which they derive their means of subsistence. Of this derivation of a subsistence, Marx writes that "As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are therefore, coincides with their production, both what they produce and how they produce."
Next, Marx makes it known that nations separate themselves from other nations by the manner in which they have developed their "productive forces." Even "...the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the state of development reached by its production and its internal and external resources." Every single productive force brings with it a different division of labor. An example from American history would be the creation of the Cotton Gin. Replacing the need for workers hand-picking the seeds out of the cotton was the Gin, which was able to do this task by itself. Thus, the need for workers decreased and the need for skilled operators (for the Gins) increased.
Marx next writes that the division of labor separates the industrial and commercial from the agricultural sector.
· This separation thus leads to a division between 1) country and town and 2) commercial and industrial labor
· These "various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership," according to Marx
Division of Labor and Forms of Property
There are different kinds of ownership, the first being Tribal Ownership. Tribal Ownership "...corresponds to the undeveloped stage of production, at which a people lives by hunting and fishing, by the rearing of beasts, or...agriculture." According to Karl Marx, the division of labor existent with Tribal Ownership is very rudimentary. Consequently, the social structure is basic and limited to the extended family.
The second form of ownership, "...is the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest..." Slavery, as with the first form of ownership, still exists. This stage of ownership is important for Marx as it marks the rising of private property as an "abnormal form subordinate to communal ownership." Citizens hold power over only those slaves in the community and remain tied to the communal ownership of land. Marx states that this stage illuminates class consciousness as, "...the division of labor is already more developed [than the previous stage]." This understanding of class position rises due to the existence of slaves and free people. However, class consciousness is further defined with the rise of states whose interests either lie with town or countryside. States define their interests based upon whether their interests lie more with production and industry or agriculture. The Communal State of ownership is important for Marx as it marks the rising of private property as an "abnormal form subordinate to communal ownership." With this rise of private property, the seeds are planted for the conditions of Marx's time
The third form of ownership is Feudal or Estate Property. This form of ownership, "Is based again on a community; but the directly producing class standing over against it is not...the slaves, but the enserfed small peasantry." Such an organization, according to Marx's beliefs, was an organization working against a "subjected producing class." However, the relationships and associations between serf and lord were different than modern times due to the different mode of production.
The feudal system, "...had its counterpart in the towns in the shape of corporative property, the feudal organization of trades." Property in these towns largely consisted of what one could make with his or her hands. However, competition from escaped serfs and the necessity to band against the nobles initiated the rise of trade guilds. Interestingly, the rising strength of these guilds sparked a mimicry of the feudal system in the countryside, "...which brought into being in the towns a hierarchy similar to that in the country."
Marx's summary has thus indicated that property during the feudal times consisted of lords and nobles with their serfs and on the other hand, the labor of the individual "with small capital commanding the labor of the journeyman."
The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History/ Social Being and Social Consciousness
For Marx, every single man, woman, and child is labeled according to his or her ability to produce. He writes that, "...definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations." For Marx, there is an inescapable connection between mode of production and the social and political structure of a given society. Every person is weighted by his or her ability to produce. Marx writes that "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men..." Marx here introduces the beginning of his idea known as "Commodification," the manufacture and consumption of ideas. Marx argues that all things in their original form are constructed for the purpose of monetary gain. This commodification includes the commodification of ideas, inventions, etc.
Marx distinguishes between the German philosophy of his day and his philosophy by saying, "In direct contrast to the German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven."
History: Fundamental Conditions
Marx states that, in order to make history, men must first satisfy the means to live, i.e. eating, drinking, and habitation. Therefore, the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy these needs.
Marx then goes on to talk about "consciousness". For him, consciousness is a social product, which concerns the immediate sensuous environment and of the limited connection with other persons and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious. At first, this consciousness is like that of a sheep in a herd, but as production and population increases, there evolves a division of labor. Marx says, "From this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real; from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of "pure" theory, theology, etc."
Marx views history as dependant on the mode of production. Agrarian societies have a very equal division of labor with a mode of production primarily dependant on land. As many societies evolved into feudal systems, towns became the center for trade guilds and skilled workers. Rural areas were dominated by nobles who virtually enslaved serfs. The division of labor in those societies was more pronounced because skilled work used capital which for the first time was not reliant on property. Marx emphasizes the division between skilled workers in guilds and the unskilled poor. Political power, Marx said, was dominated by the guilds which made laws primarily to protect their own property. Those with capital were able to build manufacturing plants in cities, which lead to the industrial revolution. Essentially, technology such as more efficient manufacturing equipment was changing the way history progressed. Technology increases the efficiency of the mode of production.
Private Property and Communism
With the division of labor comes the unequal distribution of labor and its products, i.e. property. Property, in its most fundamental form, can be found in the house, with the wife and children being seen as slaves to the husband. Further, Marx states, "division of labor implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another." The division of labor traps man in a specific mode of production, and he must remain in this mode if he is to maintain his livelihood. However, in a communist society, Marx alleges none has one exclusive sphere of activity, because the society regulates the general production. In practice state-controlled economies have had to regulate individuals to spheres of activity based on their expertise, such as Soviet nuclear workers who lived in an isolated town with special benefits.
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
Conclusions from the Materialist Conception of History
Marx begins by restating that history is the succession of separate generations, using the materials and capital funds inherited from previous generations. This new generation modifies how it uses its resources to the changing circumstances of the world, and in turn, these new modifications continue to shape and change the circumstances faced by future generations. Furthermore, the greater interaction and intercourse between separate spheres of production and labor across areas, the more history becomes world history. Marx cites how inventions or trade policies in one country can cause profound effects in others and therefore become world historic facts.
Summary of the Materialist Conception of History
Marx's conception of history depends on the ability to expound the real processes of production to understand the material process of life and the intercourse connected with this and created by it. Unlike Idealistic history, materialist history does not look for a particular framework to categorize history. It instead seeks to explain the formulation of ideas from material practice. Marx argues that revolution is the driving form of history, not the mental criticism or idealistic arrangements made by some of his contemporaries. Each generation therefore, is not the culmination of an ideal or self conciusness of the spirit, but instead the sum of productive forces and historically created relations that are handed down to the next generation.
The Inconsistency of the Idealest Conception of History
The idealist conception of nature separates man from history. It instead seeks to view history on some extra-superterrestrial, transcendent phenomenon. This according to Marx, creates the antithesis of history. These idealists simply look at history through its historical epochs and only pay attention to its purely religious or political motives as the controlling and determining factor of their real practices. Marx issues a scathing critique of post-Hegelians tendencies to separate ideals from the real events that gave rise to varying trends in history. He criticizes their arrogance to write history based on arbitrary constrictions and literary gossip while presupposing that their rendition of history is infinitely exalted above all national prejudices. He notes how absurd to presume these "God Men" existed above all bias and nationalist sentiments. All that these theorists do according to Marx, is take the nonsense they find and rearranging it into a framework that presupposes that these events have some special sense which can be discovered through theoretical analysis. It is the removal of man and real events from history that Marx cites as the Idealists fatal flaw.
Feuerback, another 19th century German philosopher, is criticized by Marx in this previous section. Although Feuerback claims he himself is a Communist, Marx rejects his claims; he scoffs at Feuerback's need to establish proof that men need each other and always have in order to justify an existing fact rather than overthrowing the existing system, as a real Communist should.
Preconditions of the Real Liberation of Man
"Liberation is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, and the conditions of intercourse..."
C. The Real Basis of Ideology
Division of Labor: Town and Country
According to Karl Marx, "The greatest division of material and metal labour is the separation of town and country." This separation, between town and country, entails a sort of antagonizing effect between the two. Marx writes about this antagonism. He states that, "The antagonism between town and country can only exist within the framework of private property. It is the most crass expression of the subjection of the individual under the division of labor." Consequently, Marx believes that the interests of "town-animals" and "country-animals" conflict. Thinking differently, Marx writes that,
"The separation of town and country can also be understood as the seperation of capital and landed property, as the beginning of the existence and development of capital independent of landed property - the beginning of property having its basis only in labour and exchange."
Marx proceeds to explain the advent of towns. He writes that towns were ultimately formed by serfs, fleeing from their masters. These serfs and their families entered the towns and were either adopted in to guilds or became day laborers. Marx calls these day laborers an "unorganized rabble" This unorganized rabble will eventually comprise the proletariat. Marx also writes that,
"These towns were true 'associations,' called forth by the direct need, the care of providing for the protection of property, and of multiplying the means of production and defence of the seperate members."
Marx follows up this quotation by describing the "rabble," who looked up these guild "associations" with envy and lust. The guilds largely excluded those who comprised the rabble and thus, maintained a strangle-hold on power. The rabble of former serfs remained powerless and could only manage simple revolts against the guilds and the landed class.
The guilds were comprised of workers who had to be "well-versed" in every aspect of their task. As there was little communication between towns, the workers of the guilds were relied upon to deliver products, as many products could not be bartered from the other towns. Marx describes the formation of guilds as the necessity to protect acquired skills, exclude serfs, and to protect the feudal organization of the whole country. The guild system effectively protected private property and created a patriarchal system to ensure the continuation of its existence. Journeymen were bound to the system so that they could one day become masters. Furthermore, the proximity of the guilds created tightly bound communities.
Division of Labor: Production and Commerce
Marx describes how the formation of a new class, the merchants, developed a new division of labor. The commercial dealings between towns brought the distinction between production and commerce. Marx claims that the only way for inventions not to be lost is through commerce. The invention must transcend its local area to have any permanent place in history, or else the invention can be lost to ordinary wars and disasters.
Marx writes that, "The next extension of the division of labor was the separation of production and commerce, the formation of a special class of merchants..." These special merchants soon spark communication between different towns and different parts of the world. Such communication initiates the advent of new ideas, new tools from different towns, "...and the separation between production and commerce soon calls forth a new division of production between the individual towns, each of which is soon exploiting a predominant branch of industry." This exploitation of different industries by different towns sparks the beginning of large cities and plants the seeds for the rising of nations. Marx ends his explanation of the separation of production and commerce by stating that
"Only when commerce has become world commerce and has as its basis large-scale industry, when all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, is the permanence of the acquired productive forces assured."
Here, Marx views the dawning of world commerce as a slow progression. Through this progression of commerce and industry, the more ingrained the process becomes in the inhabitants of the towns.
The Rise of Manufacturing
Manufacturing brought about the division of labor between the towns, with certain towns specializing in certain product areas. The pre-requisites for such towns were the concentration of population and capital to make and fund these endeavors.
Weaving was the first venture to succeed. People always need clothing and as the population size grew, more people needed more clothing. The accumulation of capital allowed for the growth in size and product diversification (ie. creating more luxurious products) of this industry. Furthermore, because weaving demanded little skill, the weaving industry resisted the tendency to form guilds. This spurned a change in property relations, as the capital of both merchants and manufacturing became more moveable and modern.
Manufacturing gained popularity among the guild-oppressed peasants. Relations between worker and employer changed, moving from a patriarhcal structure of slave and master to a monetary one of worker and capitalist. Furthermore, the feudal system deteriorated, thus breaking up loyal hierarchical armies, liberating peasants to work and earn a living for themselves, and transforming tillage into pasteurized land.
“With the advent of manufactures, the various nations entered into a competitive relationship, the struggle for trade, which was fought out in wars, protective duties and prohibitions, whereas earlier the nations, insofar as they were connected at all, had carried on an inoffensive exchange with each other. Trade had from now on a political significance.”
The discovery of the Americas and the finding of a trade route to East Asia lent themselves to the extension of commerce and thus manufacturing. History took on a new face of adventurism, colonization, and increasing world trade. However, with this new face came a new type of struggle – one over commerce and trading advantages. The accumulation of movable capital led to the decline of guilds, whose natural/stationary capital as well as limited production scope could not compete.
Nations began banning the export of their precious metals as well as providing protection of industries from both domestic and foreign competitors (using tariffs and tributes). While these measures originated out of necessity, they slowly took on a position of fiscal necessity as the State became more dependent on monetary capital. Tariffs (now both import and export) which were initially instilled to protect against robbers soon became a primary source of funds for the Treasury.
A second historical change happened between the middle of the 17th and lasted until the end of the 18th century. Trade dominated as commerce expanded- especially to the American colonies, which had become a significant market. Improvements and superiority in navigation became imperative to commercially competitive nations. “The competition of the nations among themselves was excluded as far as possible by tariffs, prohibitions and treaties; and in the last resort the competitive struggle was carried on and decided by wars (especially naval wars).” The viability of the markets (both home and abroad) necessitated the protection of manufacturing. Merchants- the facilitators of trade- gained political importance and clout. “This period is also characterised by the cessation of the bans on the export of gold and silver and the beginning of the trade in money; by banks, national debts, paper money; by speculation in stocks and shares and stockjobbing in all articles; by the development of finance in general. Again capital lost a great part of the natural character which had still clung to it.”
Most Extensive Division of Labor: Large Scale Industry
The advent of big industry, or the application of elemental forces to industrial ends, machinery and the most complex division of labour, spurned a third change in private ownership since the middle ages. Competitive nations instituted customs duties to harness these colossal industries.
The nature of the world was rapidly transforming, both physically and psychologically. The spirit of universal competition motivated individuals to work their hardest and repressed any ideology/philosophy/theology that endorsed ideas to the contrary. Eventually, all capital moved into the realm of industrial capital and thus was able to rapidly circulate. Physically, small towns gave way to large urban cities and natural growth that impeded labor was destroyed. Moreover, universal competition “made all civilised nations and every individual member of them dependent for the satisfaction of their wants on the whole world, thus destroying the former natural exclusiveness of separate nations…Generally speaking, big industry created everywhere the same relations between the classes of society, and thus destroyed the peculiar individuality of the various nationalities.” Social classes sprang up from the wreckage of the old world, once again making the worker’s life more difficult and at times unbearable. <>
The level of development among the big industries of different nations remains unequal, mainly due to the differing leadership ideologies and subsequent mass support. Despite the disadvantages of big industry, “the workers excluded from big industry are placed by it in a still worse situation than the workers in big industry itself.”
The Relation of State and Law Property
The first form of property was "tribal" property. Since tribes live together in oe town, the tribal property appears as state property with the individual having the right of mere possession which is confined to landed property only. Marx states that real private property began with movable propety such as slaves. It has evolved throughout time into its current form, which is cut off from the influence of the state. Modern private property then corresponds to the modern state as the national debt is held by the owners of private property and is dependent on the redit extended to it from these property holders by means of taxation and borrowing. The state therefore exists outside of society as an orginization of the bourgeois who support its perpetuation and organize to meet their aggregate interests. Therefore, where class exists, the state is not independent as the state merely fntions to protect private property.
Marx then continues his discussion on the formation of the law. He argues that the illusion of the law is that it develops from the will. In reality, it has developed out of the interests of the ruling class and in conjunction with the development of private property. He uses the examples of maritime law being derived from maritime trade. He continues to show the contradiction between the law being the general will while property itself is based on the private will. What this leads to is that the law is really derived from the individual will as property relationships and methods of intercourse evolve over time. The law exists to admit the new forms of commerce into the means to aquire property.
D. The Proletariat and Communism
Individuals, Class, and Community
In this section, Marx begins by claiming that, in the Middle Ages, burghers had to unite to overcome the landed nobilities' feudal rule. As these burghers came together, they developed common conditions which, once they broke feudal ties, became a class condition. These burghers came together into towns, and these towns soon began to form associations among themselves, which spread these class conditions everywhere. Slowly, this class began to include all propertied individuals, creating a second class below it of unpropertied individuals. This second class is only a class insomuch as they are fighting the higher class, but also must fight with each other for existance. The proletariat also begins to believe that their lot in life is predestined, so become subsumed by the class structure. This process, says Marx, is a sort of evolution of "Man".
The transformation, however, requires the creation of communities. In this way, Marx seems to say that individuals become less defined by themselves, the "pure" individual, and instead become more dependent on the community for definition. Marx refers to this as people's "accidental character" and claims that, while it may seem like people have more individual freedom under this system, really their freedom is hampered. For the capitalist class to develop their identity only takes creating new communities, while the proletariat requires overhauling the system all together, and literally abolishing the very conditions that brought them into existence. In doing so, they will find themselves in opposition to the form in which society has given itself collective expression, i.e. the State. The State is what is preventing the proletariat from asserting themselves as individuals.
Forms of Intercourse
"Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals." Communism creates a reality in which it is impossible for anything to exist independently of individuals, because reality is simply a product of individual intercourse.
Study Questions